pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Shutterstock Reviewers Beating Me Up.... Anyone Else?  (Read 123123 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Shelma1

« Reply #925 on: October 11, 2015, 14:41 »
+2
I stop submitting on Thursday evening and start again Saturday night or Sunday morning. smaller batches might also help.


« Reply #926 on: October 11, 2015, 17:36 »
+3
I stop submitting on Thursday evening and start again Saturday night or Sunday morning. smaller batches might also help.

That's essentially what I do as well.

« Reply #927 on: October 11, 2015, 18:16 »
+1
I stop submitting on Thursday evening and start again Saturday night or Sunday morning. smaller batches might also help.

Tip duly noted and appreciated ;D I'm having a severely injured batch I submitted on Friday (9 out of 10 rejected), will resubmit on Monday to check if the magic really works!

« Reply #928 on: October 12, 2015, 02:05 »
+1
I stop submitting on Thursday evening and start again Saturday night or Sunday morning. smaller batches might also help.

That's essentially what I do as well.
I do this too. I feel that this also ensures that the approved images can be seen by buyers before the work week ends. Images approved late on Friday or over the weekend may not get to be seen much.

« Reply #929 on: October 12, 2015, 05:00 »
0
I see that last time status e-mail didn't arrive, i simple found my new images online in my port. Or they stopped to send them?

« Reply #930 on: October 12, 2015, 05:13 »
0
I see that last time status e-mail didn't arrive, i simple found my new images online in my port. Or they stopped to send them?

Probably some images of the batch are still pending. You won't get an email till all the images are reviewed. Reviewed images can go online.

« Reply #931 on: October 12, 2015, 05:29 »
0
Thank you. Just checked - they gave priority to editorials, exactly they are online and one was downloaded probably in some minutes after it was shown in my port

« Reply #932 on: October 12, 2015, 05:54 »
0
My only rejections lately were for a few with a missed bit of a brand name (how did they spot that!) and descriptions with extra info not about the image.  Nothing for soft, noise, or anything like that.  I submit at random times during the week.  In case anyone cares.

Shelma1

« Reply #933 on: October 12, 2015, 05:58 »
+2
Sounds like you have a decent reviewer where you live.


« Reply #935 on: October 13, 2015, 13:05 »
+1
Sounds like you have a decent reviewer where you live.


I think we all have the same reviewers and they use software as a tool to review, not 100% eyes.

http://fotoforensics.com/tutorial-ela.php#WhatToLookFor

« Reply #936 on: October 27, 2015, 18:29 »
+4
My only rejections lately were for a few with a missed bit of a brand name (how did they spot that!) and descriptions with extra info not about the image.  Nothing for soft, noise, or anything like that.  I submit at random times during the week.  In case anyone cares.

Sean, you have an excellent professional portfolio, so it's natural that you have 99% approval rate.
The professional studio pictures and illustrations are almost always approved.

But the issue is on all the rest of live, wildlife, and travel photography where the lights cannot be perfectly set, and the time and exposure cannot be planned, and the subject  is not posing.




« Reply #937 on: October 28, 2015, 11:11 »
0
The reviewers seem to have something new: Dust and scratches, unnecessary to say that my batch of images got rejected for this reason although I can't see any dust even at 200%.

« Reply #938 on: October 28, 2015, 11:31 »
+1
Sometimes, you need to downsize image, to see dust spots. I put shadows/higlights or contrast to the maximum to check for some hard seeing senzor dust

« Reply #939 on: October 28, 2015, 17:48 »
0
it should be useful to know that software and technique  SS uses to inspect our pictures...
probably they reject for some contrasts, temperature and details, we cannot see by eyes even with perfect calibrated monitor

To inspect so much images in few hours they probably have some semi-automatic process that help reviewer to find imperfections.

Also they could discard some kind of pictures cause of less sale potential but they do not write it, just report some general  error

I use the same reflex 5d mkIII, lens, hand and postproduction process, but some themes are always accepted, some others very few

If i upload some old pictures from old compact 10 mpix camera from 2008... some are refused some are accepted, depending on subject and theme.
So "sale potential" could be a criteria they use, but never say it in notes...

I'd like that SS and all the other selective agencies would not accept pictures from compact cameras and mobile...  instead of refuse good pictures of rare landscapes, from a professional camera and lens

 



 




 

« Reply #940 on: October 28, 2015, 21:53 »
+3


I'd like that SS and all the other selective agencies would not accept pictures from compact cameras and mobile...  instead of refuse good pictures of rare landscapes, from a professional camera and lens

Subject really matters. Sometimes it's not so important how you capture it if it's one of few images available on an important subject.

I can explain you one of my personal experiences. I had a image taken inside of a underground tunnel, and it's very noisy due to high ISO. When I first submitted it to SS, they rejected it for noise. Then I noticed that there are no stock images taken inside that tunnel which is a quite important place. Then I resubmitted with all those explanations and they accepted it. As expected, it generated some sales. Just because it's the only stock image available on that subject.

Buyers don't care about how you capture it if they don't have any other options. If you submit images on sufficiently covered subject, I do think that SS should consider more about the technical quality.

« Reply #941 on: October 29, 2015, 03:43 »
0
yes, its true about covered subject, but I think in general about the stock photography overflow

now we are in the worst time for this job because there is a lot of offer cause of easy pictures from mobiles and casual uploaders.

Some people (not me) used to live on stock photography but now its more difficult, you need to contribute several sites, thousand images to gain something worthing your time.
and its getting worst day by day due to oversupply

Also for customers, that cannot even see a big preview of what they are about to buy.
Some may not care, but the most of them may prefer to buy the same shot from the better camera :)

the problem is that now all agencies may refuses some good HQ pictures because they are full of old crap of the same subject and continue to accept low quality crap from mobile

They should


« Reply #942 on: October 31, 2015, 14:35 »
+1
The reviewers seem to have something new: Dust and scratches, unnecessary to say that my batch of images got rejected for this reason although I can't see any dust even at 200%.

I've had a coupla instances recently where one or 2 small drops of water got on my lens while shooting at the shore.  an easy way to detect these later is to display  'fit to screen', then zoom in once -- now when you scroll any defects become obvious - your eye will see the fault moving when it might not when it's still

PS spot healing cures these easily

« Reply #943 on: October 31, 2015, 15:50 »
+1


I'd like that SS and all the other selective agencies would not accept pictures from compact cameras and mobile...  instead of refuse good pictures of rare landscapes, from a professional camera and lens


Subject really matters. Sometimes it's not so important how you capture it if it's one of few images available on an important subject.

I can explain you one of my personal experiences. I had a image taken inside of a underground tunnel, and it's very noisy due to high ISO. When I first submitted it to SS, they rejected it for noise. Then I noticed that there are no stock images taken inside that tunnel which is a quite important place. Then I resubmitted with all those explanations and they accepted it. As expected, it generated some sales. Just because it's the only stock image available on that subject.

Buyers don't care about how you capture it if they don't have any other options. If you submit images on sufficiently covered subject, I do think that SS should consider more about the technical quality.


http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest

very true. you have to submit HCV images and images that is not stuff ,no pun intended, that
is already fully overloaded by yuri arcurs, sjlocke,etc...

like this one... 100% approval no doubt...
http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

« Reply #944 on: October 31, 2015, 16:03 »
0


I'd like that SS and all the other selective agencies would not accept pictures from compact cameras and mobile...  instead of refuse good pictures of rare landscapes, from a professional camera and lens



Subject really matters. Sometimes it's not so important how you capture it if it's one of few images available on an important subject.

I can explain you one of my personal experiences. I had a image taken inside of a underground tunnel, and it's very noisy due to high ISO. When I first submitted it to SS, they rejected it for noise. Then I noticed that there are no stock images taken inside that tunnel which is a quite important place. Then I resubmitted with all those explanations and they accepted it. As expected, it generated some sales. Just because it's the only stock image available on that subject.

Buyers don't care about how you capture it if they don't have any other options. If you submit images on sufficiently covered subject, I do think that SS should consider more about the technical quality.


http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest

very true. you have to submit HCV images and images that is not stuff ,no pun intended, that
is already fully overloaded by yuri arcurs, sjlocke,etc...

like this one... 100% approval no doubt...
http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


Thats what "El Chapo's" port would look like....

Rinderart

« Reply #945 on: October 31, 2015, 19:32 »
+1
Love that weed Port. Tried to find it the other day. Thanks for the Link again.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2015, 20:20 by Rinderart »

Rinderart

« Reply #946 on: October 31, 2015, 19:38 »
0


I'd like that SS and all the other selective agencies would not accept pictures from compact cameras and mobile...  instead of refuse good pictures of rare landscapes, from a professional camera and lens



Subject really matters. Sometimes it's not so important how you capture it if it's one of few images available on an important subject.

I can explain you one of my personal experiences. I had a image taken inside of a underground tunnel, and it's very noisy due to high ISO. When I first submitted it to SS, they rejected it for noise. Then I noticed that there are no stock images taken inside that tunnel which is a quite important place. Then I resubmitted with all those explanations and they accepted it. As expected, it generated some sales. Just because it's the only stock image available on that subject.

Buyers don't care about how you capture it if they don't have any other options. If you submit images on sufficiently covered subject, I do think that SS should consider more about the technical quality.


http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest

very true. you have to submit HCV images and images that is not stuff ,no pun intended, that
is already fully overloaded by yuri arcurs, sjlocke,etc...

like this one... 100% approval no doubt...
http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


Thats what "El Chapo's" port would look like....


LOL. funny.

banna

« Reply #947 on: November 01, 2015, 08:34 »
0
Weekend selection is horrible. Rejected for wrong keywords.  :o

« Reply #948 on: November 01, 2015, 10:26 »
0


I'd like that SS and all the other selective agencies would not accept pictures from compact cameras and mobile...  instead of refuse good pictures of rare landscapes, from a professional camera and lens



Subject really matters. Sometimes it's not so important how you capture it if it's one of few images available on an important subject.

I can explain you one of my personal experiences. I had a image taken inside of a underground tunnel, and it's very noisy due to high ISO. When I first submitted it to SS, they rejected it for noise. Then I noticed that there are no stock images taken inside that tunnel which is a quite important place. Then I resubmitted with all those explanations and they accepted it. As expected, it generated some sales. Just because it's the only stock image available on that subject.

Buyers don't care about how you capture it if they don't have any other options. If you submit images on sufficiently covered subject, I do think that SS should consider more about the technical quality.


http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest

very true. you have to submit HCV images and images that is not stuff ,no pun intended, that
is already fully overloaded by yuri arcurs, sjlocke,etc...

like this one... 100% approval no doubt...
http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


Wow what a very creative port
This guys going to burn through a cameras shutter actuations just on this one subject lol

« Last Edit: November 01, 2015, 10:29 by noodle »

banna

« Reply #949 on: November 01, 2015, 11:33 »
0
can not believe :)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
25 Replies
10049 Views
Last post April 04, 2015, 16:03
by stuttershock
22 Replies
4991 Views
Last post April 04, 2015, 18:37
by shudderstok
85 Replies
33867 Views
Last post April 04, 2015, 16:02
by stuttershock
10 Replies
5285 Views
Last post June 22, 2015, 14:07
by Freedom
204 Replies
13816 Views
Last post December 13, 2019, 12:46
by Pauws99

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results